After the collapse of the London summit, the US and Russia no longer hide their partnership: Trump reproaches Putin in a friendly manner, Lavrov showers Trump with compliments, and Naryshkin comes to the defense of the US president.
Main Topic Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is April 25, and I’m in Kyiv. It’s now 07:41, and we continue our morning reflections on what’s happening in Russia, in the world, in Ukraine, and in our souls.
Rapprochement Between Russia and the US Link to heading
Today in Kyiv, April 25, a day of mourning has been declared for those killed in the overnight Russian attack. While Ukraine grieves its dead, Russia is celebrating a major victory. And the victory lies not only in the fact that Russia managed to kill more Ukrainian civilians than usual, but also in that Putin managed to win the Battle of London. Moreover, he managed to win it without directly participating—Trump did everything just fine on his own.
In my opinion, the relationship between these two ghouls—Putin and Trump—has reached a new level, even though they haven’t met in person. As far as I understand, a meeting is being prepared, but it’s not expected anytime soon. Despite this, there is a clear rapprochement, primarily seen in their rhetoric.
Trump’s reaction to the strikes on Kyiv was a soft, friendly critique—compared to the harsh, even deadly criticism directed at Zelensky by the West. Just listen to his criticism of Putin: Trump is convinced that Putin will listen to his call to stop attacking Ukraine. After the overnight strikes on Thursday, Trump wrote, “I am not pleased with the Russian strikes on Kyiv.” Look, everyone thinks he should be pleased, and he writes, “I am not pleased with the Russian strikes on Crimea. There is no need, no need. Very untimely.” The key phrase here is “very untimely.” “Vladimir, stop! 5,000 soldiers die each week. Let’s make a peace deal.”
So, this is friendly, soft criticism. “It’s untimely, Vladimir, you’re killing Ukrainians, but you’re doing it at the wrong time, it’s tactless. Let’s just agree on a time when it’s appropriate to kill, and when it’s not. Right now—it’s not.” On Russia’s side, Trump is now openly perceived as a close partner. This is evident in the way Russian officials now speak his language. Lavrov, for example, uses Trump-style language when discussing a Ukraine deal.
In a BBC News interview, Lavrov said, “Russia is ready for a deal, but certain elements need to be analyzed.” The interview stated that the US president believes—and rightly so—that we are moving in the right direction. “The president’s statement mentioned a deal, and we are ready to reach one. But there are certain points and elements that need to be adjusted. We are working on that process.” It seems that some of these “points and elements” being adjusted were on display during the night of April 24 in Kyiv.
Then comes a stunning quote that really shows—not necessarily a pivot, but at least a shift—in the positions of Ukraine, Russia, and the United States: “The master of the White House, Donald Trump, is probably the only leader in the world who understands the need to eliminate the root causes of the Ukrainian crisis.” End quote—Lavrov. The root cause of the Ukrainian crisis, as we know, is the very existence of an independent Ukrainian state. And Donald Trump, according to Lavrov, is apparently the only world leader who understands this.
In addition to Lavrov’s remarks, an important statement came recently from the Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR). On its website, the SVR—led by Naryshkin—posted a unique message in defense of Trump. The statement accused the Anti-Corruption Foundation, the Meduza Project, and others of participating in a campaign to undermine Trump’s peace efforts.
According to the SVR, “British and French intelligence services are persistently directing Russian defectors and near-destitute seekers of dirt from the Anti-Corruption Foundation and Meduza to fabricate allegations about Trump’s inner circle having secret ties with Russian political and business circles.” The SVR added that London and Paris are particularly interested in information about Trump’s business connections with Gazprom, Rosneft, Rostec, and Rosatom.
Naryshkin further reported, “The results of these fabrications are to be used to discredit White House policy and sabotage the negotiation process for a peaceful settlement in Ukraine.” (The spelling “na Ukraine” reflects the SVR’s own usage.)
This is unprecedented. Donald Trump is now officially on the list of persons protected by Russian intelligence services. At least publicly. It’s published on the SVR’s website. Other agencies haven’t followed yet. The FSB? The Federal Protective Service? So far, no documents confirming they are also working not only for Putin but also for Trump. The Federal Protective Service hasn’t published anything saying Trump is now a protected person like Putin.
We can only point to the SVR’s unusual transparency. This is unheard of in the history of Russian intelligence. There were times when they defended “brotherly” communist regimes during the Soviet era—when they protected communist party leaders and Warsaw Pact heads of state. But never before has a foreign leader, formally from a hostile state, been openly taken under protection.
This marks a turning point—clear evidence that the Putin regime and the Trumpist USA are rapidly moving toward each other.
Endless Trump Deadlines Link to heading
And finally, one more important thing I think is worth mentioning in this context. Yesterday, we held a poll on our channel about whether Trump would actually follow through on his threat to withdraw from the negotiation process. The majority—including yours truly—voted that Trump really does intend to leave the negotiation process. But making predictions when it comes to Trump is a pointless exercise. Trump has once again proven this. The deadline he announced—remember, it was set for the 24th. If—well, actually, it wasn’t Trump who said it, it was Rubio—if Ukraine didn’t join Trump’s plan by today, then that would be it, and the US would exit the negotiations.
But Trump recently said something entirely different. This happened during talks with Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre. And there, Trump stated that Russia is supposedly ready to make concessions to end the war. He also said that the question of the US leaving the Ukraine negotiations, in the absence of an agreement, should be revisited in two weeks. So the deadline turned out to be flexible—very, very, very elastic, in fact.
There were all sorts of hypotheses thrown around at first: that the 20th—Hitler’s birthday and Easter—would be the deadline. Then the elastic stretched until April 30, marking 100 days. Turns out, that date wasn’t final either—it’s now another two weeks. So we’re looking at the beginning of May. How much further the deadline will stretch, we don’t know. But what’s clear is that despite being tired of all this dragging on, Trump isn’t planning to withdraw yet. He faces serious obstacles to pulling out of the process.
Apparently, he’s trying to find the right words to explain why he’s once again ended up in a mess. Maybe he’s still trying to pressure Ukraine, or waiting for Whitcoff to return from Moscow. I won’t try to guess Trump’s motives for extending the deadline. But in any case, we can clearly see that the deadline is rubber.
What Trump Is Asking from Russia Link to heading
His response to the question of what concessions Russia has made so far to bring peace is very telling. Trump stated that the concessions are the cessation of war and the refusal to seize the entire country. In other words, in Trump’s view of the world, Putin is capable of capturing all of Ukraine. So, Putin’s decision not to take over the entire country is, according to Trump, a major concession.
That is, Putin—who, four years into the war, still hasn’t managed to capture a single regional capital in Ukraine—is, in Trump’s mind, capable of taking the whole country. And now he’s choosing not to. That, supposedly, is a tremendous concession.
In reality, the positions of Trump and Putin differ slightly. They differ in rhetoric, and in that Trump has more issues he needs to navigate. But on the Ukraine issue, their positions ultimately align. The final resolution of the Ukrainian question, for both Trump and Putin, is the disappearance of Ukraine as an independent state. Twin brothers—there’s nothing more to say on that.
Answers to Questions Link to heading
Before moving on to your questions, I want to remind you that, as usual, on Fridays at 8:00 PM, we have Andrey Andreyevich Piontkovsky. Don’t miss it. I think it’s going to be interesting. Now, let’s get to your questions.
On the Author’s National Self-Identification Link to heading
Question from the Telegram channel chat. The author of the question is Ya. B.
Igor Alexandrovich, you’ve repeatedly said that despite your Jewish and Ukrainian roots—part of your blood, family ties—you consider yourself Russian, you are Russian. I’d really like to know from you: what does it mean to be Russian? I’m asking myself the same question and haven’t found an answer yet. Let me explain. Let’s leave out the language aspect right away. Canada speaks French and English, yet Canadians aren’t Americans, Englishmen, or French. Australians remain Australians. The same goes for Spanish-, French-, and English-speaking residents of the Caribbean. So, most of my life, from birth, has been spent in southern Russia, between the Southern Volga and the southern seas. Certain tastes, attachments, probably a type of character and mentality have formed. And when I ask myself: who am I? What is my identity? I answer: I’m a southerner. I feel a mental connection with this nature, landscape, and climate. In this connection, I feel I have more in common with Louisiana, for example, than with Vologda, Lipetsk, Moscow, or Kamchatka. I’ve studied Russian literature and poetry, and I value it highly, but I’m more emotionally touched by Faulkner, Márquez, Carlson, Carlos Williams, García Lorca, Bashō, Moos, the UN, and so on. Perhaps this is because of their connection to the nature of specific places, expressed in their work. So what is the feeling of being Russian for a Russian person? What is the quintessence of this Russian-ness? What does it mean to be Russian?
Dear colleague! In truth, the question of identity is one that can be answered very briefly—but not precisely. And if answered in full, it becomes a very long response. So I’ll try to take a middle path. It’s a serious question. Let’s clarify some points.
First of all, what is national identity? Today, the majority of researchers tend to agree with Benedict Anderson’s idea, expressed in his book Imagined Communities. The essence of it is that a nation is, above all, an imagined community. That is, a person relates themselves to a certain group of people—imagining it. When someone says, “I’m, for example, Italian,” they’re associating themselves with a vast number of people who lived in Italy and beyond, who considered themselves Italians, live there now, and will live there in the future.
In the same way, I see myself as part of a large number of people—many of whom I don’t like much these days—who consider themselves Russian. That’s how it is. You can, of course, cherry-pick and say you belong to a community of like-minded people, but that’s a different type of identity—political or ideological.
Identity is multifaceted. A person who considers themselves Russian can also, in terms of views, be a liberal. At the same time, they might identify by gender—as a man, a woman, a teenager, an older person, and so on. That’s the first point.
Second, there’s what’s called self-identity and external identity. You can consider yourself anything—even a Martian or an elf—but it also matters how others see you. When I conducted a major study on the Jewish population in Russia, I identified at least a dozen different types of identity, including external identity—which often turns out to be decisive.
For example, many Jews didn’t initially perceive themselves as such from childhood, but the surrounding environment “pushed” them into Jewishness. Einstein, for instance, wrote that he didn’t think of himself as Jewish until persecution began and society explained to him who he was. The same “push” happens. In the case of being Russian, this kind of external pressure doesn’t seem to exist within Russia itself. But once you’re abroad, people tell you who you are. You may see yourself as French or, like you, a southerner, but your surroundings explain that you’re Russian—because of your passport, because you speak Russian.
So external identity—how others perceive and define you—also matters. All these types of identity come together. In the end, you can, of course, remove yourself from being Russian and declare yourself a citizen of the world, with no connection to Russianness. That’s a personal choice. A liberal approach is that what matters most is how a person feels about themselves. But still, the factors I mentioned are real.
As for me, how do I see it today? When people from my country—my country—have committed a crime, I feel it would be dishonest to say, “You know, I’m out of this, I’ve left Russia, I no longer consider myself Russian, and I bear no responsibility for what my country and my people have done.” It’s my people who are now killing Ukrainians. I don’t want to hide, to change my identity, and say, “No, that’s what Russians are doing, but I’m not Russian, I’m half Ukrainian, half Jewish by blood, so I’ll just change my identity.” No. I think that’s wrong. It seems dishonest to me.
Why am I Russian? For a very simple reason: I’ve spoken Russian all my life. The analogies with America or other English-speaking countries don’t work here because I don’t live in America. I live—and have lived—most of my life in Russia. The majority of books I’ve read are in Russian. Most of the writers I know are Russian writers. Among the countries I know, I know the most about Russia. I can’t say I love Russia—no, I don’t. But it’s what I know best.
Today, Russia feels like a foreign country to me. I can openly say that I don’t plan to return there, because I can hardly imagine being among people who, one way or another, are involved in these crimes. But still—what can you do—that’s a part of my life. That’s about it.
About the English-Language YouTube Program Link to heading
Yulia
Two weeks ago, I raised the idea of creating an English-language program on YouTube. Two people responded: one suggested I take the project into my own hands, and the other advised writing to Garry Kasparov on Facebook. I wrote—he didn’t reply. Igor Alexandrovich, everyone keeps saying there’s no leader ready to head the anti-Trump movement. But in reality, we couldn’t even form a team for the show. My question is: how can we fight lies if everyone is so timid and waiting for something?
Dear Yulia, I’ve already said that—I hope you understand—I don’t take part in projects that, first of all, go beyond my capabilities, and second, whose implementation—at least by our means—I don’t quite believe in. You see, it’s a question of resources. Every time I’ve had to carry out dozens, or more likely hundreds, of projects in my life, I always assessed the resources first.
In this case, the project you’re suggesting, I might be wrong, but it seems to me that the resources it would require exceed what we have at our disposal. Doing it on a volunteer basis, where everyone joins in when they have time after work, seems to me, frankly, quite a difficult story. Especially when it’s done in a scattered, improvised way.
I’m not trying to discourage you, not at all. If there are enthusiasts—well, great. I’d be glad if something comes of it. But beyond all that, I barely have the energy to carry out what I’ve already planned and committed to doing.
On the Indifference of Russian Citizens Link to heading
Sergey Andryushchenko
Igor, you’ve repeatedly stated—like Kasparov—that in the Russian Federation people either support the war or are indifferent. Of course, indifference is equated with support. But that means forced silence, the silence of hostages of the regime, of people who support neither the war nor Putin. You, like Kasparov, ignore—and I believe there are—not just a few, but over a million such non-indifferent people, whose hearts bleed from the horrors Putin is committing in Ukraine. But it’s easier to paint everyone with the same brush while sitting in the US or anywhere else outside of Russia. And here’s another question. Well, let me answer this one first.
First of all, dear Sergey, what you said is untrue. No one is painting everyone with the same brush. I fully understand that there are all kinds of people living in Russia. I’ve said many times that among those who stayed in Russia, people are different. There are people who—yes, a significant portion, probably now the majority—support Putin and the war in one way or another. They might do this actively or passively.
As for those you mention—whose hearts bleed—well, you see, this bleeding heart, it’s not visible publicly. So how do you, or anyone else, assess the number of such people? That’s a big question. An important sociological question. But it’s hard to gauge how many people are out there whose hearts are bleeding. Judging by outward signs, there aren’t that many. Perhaps. If your heart is bleeding, it should somehow show. Yes, of course, in the current situation we’ve all found ourselves in—or used to be in—it’s very difficult to show anything openly in Russia.
So the accusation that we’re painting everyone with the same brush is misplaced. I perfectly understand that people are different. As for the criticism about “sitting in the US or wherever”—that’s the kind of jab we hear from someone like Podrabinek, like “you ran away.” But you see—yes, I had to leave, because the threat I faced meant, essentially, dying in prison—and quite quickly at that, given my age and health. Not exactly an appealing prospect, is it?
There are heroes like Skobov, who walk their own Golgotha without regret, with their visors up. But that’s a unique, rare kind of story. Not everyone can do that. So there’s no need to scold people for leaving. In reality, the path of emigration is not the easiest one. When you say “easier”—well, there must be a reason why not everyone leaves, including those who disagree with the regime. Because it’s not easier. It’s not.
Now, regarding numbers. There are still some attempts to estimate how many people are not supporters of the regime. But they are the minority. They are the minority. So it’s fair to say that the majority still either actively or passively support the regime.
On Europe and Its Potential Link to heading
Second question
Amid all this negotiation noise, Europe seems to have gotten lost and shows no sign of waking up. It still appears to be feeding promises and expressing deep concern.
You know, I think the situation has certainly worsened after the London fiasco. But still, saying that Europe is merely feeding promises isn’t entirely fair, considering the billions of euros Europe is allocating to Ukraine. Europe is waking up—it’s trying to restore or, rather, strengthen its defense industry. Yes, it’s happening slowly.
But we have to accept that we don’t have another Europe. Europe seems to be Ukraine’s only remaining ally. And we need to proceed from the fact that this is the ally we have. Yes, it’s the only one. And if even that disappears, I believe the situation in Ukraine would become extremely tragic.
On the Trump-Putin Plans for Crimea Link to heading
Gloomy Donkey.
Question: The US—Trump is pressuring Zelensky to officially renounce Crimea, fully understanding that getting a concession on the other four regions is unrealistic. Don’t you think the goal of the Putin-Trump plan is for Ukraine to explode from within after such a move, while Putin patches up holes, rearms, and then in a year—two, three, doesn’t matter—attacks Ukraine again? And notice, it’s crucial for Putin and Trump that Ukraine itself recognizes Crimea as Russian. Only then will they get the desired effect. The US recognizing Crimea doesn’t change much—and frankly, if Trump were to do it himself, it could cause him problems.
Well, generally speaking, the text here is a bit jumbled, and it’s not entirely clear what the exact question is. But yes—undoubtedly, Trump’s plan is to pressure Ukraine and Zelensky into making an official concession on Crimea. Trump and Putin are operating in tandem—that’s fairly obvious. As of now, we see that they acted together on the London front. Trump made Ukraine—and specifically President Zelensky—an offer that simply couldn’t be accepted. Zelensky couldn’t help but publicly reject that plan.
All the disingenuous talk that “no one asked Zelensky to recognize Crimea as Russian” is nonsense. What exactly is that document sitting on the negotiation table, then? The absurdity here is clear—if Trump wanted to gift Crimea to Putin, fine, let him do it himself. But why include it as a formal negotiation point?
That document, hypothetically speaking, would be signed by Ukraine. That means Ukraine would be agreeing that Crimea is Russian. So no—this talk that “Ukraine wasn’t asked to recognize Crimea as Russian” is a lie. A direct lie. Because when that clause is included in Trump’s plan and Ukraine is asked to respond, it means Ukraine is expected to agree. Ukraine did not agree. The result was the so-called London fiasco.
So yes, everything you’ve described is basically accurate. Putin and Trump are indeed acting in coordination—even though they haven’t met in person.
On Easter Greetings Link to heading
Artem Mishin.
So—Christ is risen! Indeed He is risen! I’m not a believer, but I decided to respond anyway. Just naturally responded: “Indeed He is risen!” I see this holiday as more of a folk tradition. Also, in Ukraine, along with the well-known “Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the heroes! Glory to the nation! Death to the enemies!” there’s also a lesser-known continuation: “Glory to Jesus Christ and glory to the Holy God.” My question is this: what should we make of the visible fact that the Holy Fire doesn’t burn or harm people for the first couple of minutes after it descends? What should we make of that?
There is no such fact. That’s it—that’s how to deal with it. This “fact” doesn’t exist.
As for the discussion about how to respond—as an atheist—to the greeting “Christ is risen!”—well, dear friends, I’m not forcing anything on anyone. I was asked how I respond, and I answered. I’m not convinced that when you know you don’t believe in the existence of a supernatural being who rose from the dead—and everyone knows you don’t believe in it—that you should take on that image and say, “Indeed He is risen.” That’s a lie. It’s a lie. I don’t believe He rose. Even for the sake of tradition—understand?
Once again, I emphasize: it’s everyone’s personal choice. I’m not imposing anything. I’m simply explaining my own choice.
Should Ukraine Respond Symmetrically to the Killing of Civilians? Link to heading
Viktor Hutsul
Mr. Yakovenko, do you still believe Ukraine shouldn’t respond symmetrically to the clear terror and killing of peaceful Ukrainian civilians? I’ve said it a thousand times: until bombs start falling on the orcs’ heads, they’ll keep supporting the genocide in Ukraine. And as for “Christ is risen”—I usually respond with Brezhnev’s words from the joke: ‘I’ve already been briefed.’
That last phrase—I don’t even know how to comment on it, to be honest. Again, how to respond is your personal choice. You can reply with Brezhnev’s line, or not reply at all. That part is more or less clear. Although from my point of view, you should respond. The joke is funny, yes. But if someone sincerely greets you, responding with mockery—well, I’m not so sure about that. I’m just speaking for myself. I feel awkward when someone sincerely congratulates me on a holiday celebrated by nearly one and a half billion people. I’m not sure it’s right to joke back. But again, it depends on the context—on who you’re talking to. If it’s someone close and you joke with each other regularly, fine. But if it’s someone you don’t know well, someone sincerely congratulating you, I think the Brezhnev joke might be inappropriate. That’s just my view.
Now, to the main question—about bombs falling on the orcs’ heads and whether that would make them stop supporting genocide in Ukraine. I think you’re mistaken. When I say that Ukraine—I mean, I support the military and political leadership of Ukraine in their decision not to respond symmetrically—it’s not just out of humanitarian considerations, although those matter too. Primarily, it’s a matter of practicality.
Russian strikes on Ukrainian cities have no military value. Why does Putin bomb civilians and destroy cities? To intimidate. To break morale. Tell me—has Putin succeeded in scaring Ukraine? Has he broken Ukrainians and made them surrender by constantly killing civilians? No.
You seem to cling to the myth that Ukrainians are brave while Russians are cowardly. But the war has been going on for four years now, and despite Ukraine’s bravery, and even with Russia’s numerical advantage and other factors, “orcs,” as you call them, are not fleeing in droves. There’s no mass desertion from the front. So this idea that bombing Russians would make them stop supporting genocide—I’m not convinced.
Also, caricaturing the enemy—as Ukrainians often do now—is understandable, but it’s dangerous if taken as a basis for political decisions. I remember how people gleefully portrayed the Russian army as a bunch of drunk, emaciated losers incapable of anything. Just like Soviet propaganda once depicted German soldiers during WWII. But then why did it take four years to defeat that supposedly weak army?
So yes, caricatures may help some cope, but they’re not a sound basis for policy. To summarize:
First, bombing the “orcs” won’t make them support Putin less—likely the opposite.
Second, in Russia, public opinion has little to no impact on state policy. Whether or not people support the genocide doesn’t matter—Putin’s policy won’t change.
And third—and most importantly—Ukraine critically depends on Western support. If Ukraine’s military and political leadership were to shift toward deliberately targeting Russian civilians—as Putin does—it would be a huge gift to Putin. He doesn’t care how many Russian civilians are killed by Ukrainian drones or missiles. But the West does care. And Ukraine depends on the West.
So, dear Viktor, implementing your idea would be a major, major gift to Putin. Try to understand that.
Would the Stalinist Regime Have Turned into Open Fascism If Stalin Had Lived Longer? Link to heading
Another letter from Ruslan. There are several questions, and here’s the first:
Do you think that if Koba hadn’t kicked the bucket on March 5, 1953, and had lived another 15–20 years, could the Stalinist red-brown regime have evolved into outright fascism? And then it continues: One could say that Stalinism and fascism share common ground.
You know, the famous horseshoe theory—that the far right and far left tend to converge—was vividly demonstrated by the brown-tinged nature of late Stalinism. Yes, in the final years, Stalinism—especially during the campaign against “cosmopolitans,” meaning Jews—undoubtedly began to take on a brown hue.
Before that, however, there were still significant differences between red totalitarianism and brown totalitarianism. The key difference lies, first of all, in the fact that red totalitarianism didn’t have the Holocaust behind it—and that’s a major distinction. There’s a fundamental difference between class-based and national-based approaches: in one case, it’s class struggle; in the other, national struggle. In one case, class-based discrimination; in the other, ethnic or national. That’s a significant difference, and it persisted. There was also a fundamentally different attitude toward private property—and that remained as well.
So yes, the differences did hold. But you’re right—there was a convergence. The Stalinist regime was gradually transforming from purely red to red-brown. In that, you are absolutely correct.
Now on to the next:
Today, the North Korean dictatorship, which by its genesis is a North Korean version of Stalinism, actively supports Russian fascism. Could the North Korean dictatorship, through active engagement with Russian fascism, evolve into a fascist dictatorship itself?
I don’t think so. I don’t think so, because there’s still a high degree of autonomy in that regime. Just because they’re cooperating doesn’t mean there will be a transformation.
Would It Be Good If Trump and His Circle Died? Link to heading
And the final question:
What do you think—if one fine day the entire American Trumpist fascist clique—Trump, Shvets, Rubio, Musk, and the rest of the fascist scum—board a plane together and the plane never lands, would that be a good thing?
Well, let’s put it this way: I, for one, very actively wish death upon Putin. I do.
As for Trump—I’m not sure it would be such a good thing. Because while Trump certainly personifies Trumpism, Trumpism itself has deeper roots. I’m afraid that the death of Trump and his key figures wouldn’t fundamentally change the situation. The problem is deeper. The problem isn’t just Trump.
Will Ukrainians Come to Russia After the War? Link to heading
Cape Horn.
You once had a question about whether Ukrainians would come to work in Russia like they did before 2014. That definitely won’t happen. Many people now simply hate Russia. That’s one side of it. On the other, the work conditions that existed before no longer exist. I have another question. My boss is from Kharkiv; after 2014 he moved to Russia. I’m not exactly sure when, but around that time. When I look at him, I’m amazed. Kharkiv is bombed almost daily. His friends, relatives, people he knows are still there. I’m stunned that this man can go to work and smile. What will happen to people like that? They won’t be able to go back.
Well, what will happen to people like that? Like all traitors—they might settle and adapt in Russia. Just like those other traitors we see on Russian TV: Igor Markov, Kylinkarov, and the rest. So yes, they might find their place in Russia, maybe face some problems, but in any case—I agree with you—they definitely won’t return to Ukraine.
Suggestion to Announce Fundraisers in Support of the AFU Link to heading
Andrey K.
Igor, I respect you for your stance, but one thing bothers me: why don’t you announce fundraisers in support of the Armed Forces of Ukraine? It’s really important. I’d be very grateful if you’d consider it. You don’t need to collect money personally. There are many units now raising funds for their own needs. Just sharing links, maybe short messages from soldiers.
Dear colleague, if you’ve paid attention, in the description of each stream there’s what I call the “begging section.” And at the very top of that section are the fundraisers in support. There are two listed: one is for the Freedom of Russia Legion, and the second is specifically for drones for the Freedom of Russia Legion. We’ve also helped the Siberian Battalion, the Russian Volunteer Corps, and others. So this is being done.
It’s just that—I’m not sure it needs to be shouted about. There are two things that set me apart from some of my colleagues who constantly talk about this. First, I don’t think it needs to be loudly advertised. Second, I don’t collect the money myself, like, for example, Alyona Kurbanova does. Since we do joint streams every Monday, she, for example, collects money for a car for a specific AFU unit. Her approach is to accumulate the funds in a dedicated account, track the donations, and update: “we still need X thousand hryvnias.”
I don’t do that—on principle—because I don’t want to take on the additional accounting work of tracking, collecting, and reporting on donations. I just share the details provided to me by the Freedom of Russia Legion, the Russian Volunteer Corps, or the Siberian Battalion. They give me the account, and I include it in the description. That’s how I operate.
Yes, Kurbanova’s approach is more visible and arguably more effective—it’s very clear when she says how much has been raised and how much is left. That’s great. But everyone has their own way of doing things. I don’t see that kind of direct involvement as possible for me—but we do collect donations.
On the Shelling of Kyiv and the Alliance Between Putin and Trump Link to heading
Elena Komova
Question: The shelling in Kyiv was the worst in all these years. It was called a salute in honor of Donald. Do you think this confirms the Moscow–Trump alliance, or is Putin just toying with people’s lives and deaths, teasing his “XD brother in mind”? What’s next? Mourning. Kharkiv, Dnipro, Zaporizhzhia, Marhanets, Pavlohrad, Kherson—every day.
You know, I think this is an alliance. I don’t think he’s teasing. I think Trump—well, I quoted Trump’s so-called “friendly” criticism of Putin, and it reads like mockery: “bad timing,” “not the right moment,” you see? As if it would’ve been fine a month later. Killing Ukrainians is okay—just schedule it better. He doesn’t care at all. Trump doesn’t care about human lives, just like Putin. I think that’s obvious. No, no one is teasing anyone. This is a confirmation of the alliance between Moscow and Trump.
Does Trump Need Someone to Blame for the Failed Deal? Link to heading
Irina
You explained on Channel 24 that Trump needs someone to blame for the failed deal. But then it occurred to me—why does he need any explanation at all? He does outrageous things without any regard. Can’t he just stop talking about it or say, “Well, I couldn’t do it”?
You know, Trump is still a PR man. Trump is a narcissist who wants to look good. So I think he will try to blame someone. And who? Of course, Zelensky. Of course, Ukraine. He’ll blame them by saying, “See? Ukraine couldn’t get Crimea back in 11 years. Ukraine gave up Crimea without a single shot, and now they refuse to recognize it as Russian.” A direct accusation.
What Did Trump Think Zelensky Should Have Done When Putin Invaded Ukraine? Link to heading
Vyacheslav
Thanks for your kind words, Vyacheslav.
Here’s the question. Trump reproaches Zelensky for starting a war with an enemy twenty times stronger. But what, in Trump’s opinion, was Zelensky supposed to do after Russia launched a full-scale invasion of his country? Have any journalists asked him this? Maybe I missed something?
Dear Vyacheslav, I think questions like that may have been asked, but Trump—well, he’s following Putin’s path in many ways. He’s sharply limiting the number of journalists—specifically from unfriendly media—who are allowed at his press events. He’s essentially surrounding himself with loyal press at his conferences. So I think this trend will continue, and soon there simply won’t be anyone left to ask such questions.
On the Coordination of Resistance Link to heading
Jimmy
Pro-Russian antiwar resistance. A counter-question: have you heard anything about coordination of resistance? Is anyone trying to lead the movement? Are any methods of resistance being offered besides the absurd “12:00 protest” or “stand in line for something”? Or is it all just: figure something out yourself? Did Polish Solidarity ever suggest changing price tags in stores?
Let’s go point by point. There are absolutely no chances for someone to coordinate resistance in Russia. Any internal attempt at coordination would immediately lead to the coordinator’s arrest—that’s clear. Attempts to coordinate from abroad are problematic too, because anyone who starts organizing externally puts people at risk—it’s instantly labeled foreign interference.
So no—no one is coordinating this antiwar resistance. And in my view, there’s no real chance that it can be coordinated.
As for Polish Solidarity—well, the difference is massive. Like all anti-imperial, national liberation movements, Solidarity only achieved real success when the imperial Soviet Union had already begun to decay into a soft, ineffective monster. At that point, Polish Solidarity became a true national resistance movement. It had far stronger foundations inside the country than anything currently happening in Russia. It was a nationwide movement, unlike what we see in Russia today.
Also, Solidarity operated with the strong backing of the Catholic Church. Poland is a deeply religious country. So the context was fundamentally different.
On Those Who Left and Those Who Stayed in Russia Link to heading
Tatyana
Everyone who left the country, without exception, has no moral right to pass judgment on those who remained in the Russian Federation. You yourself, by your choice, gave up that right. Alexey? Musk? Skobov? Maybe all of you?
No, you know, Tatyana—first of all, I want to tell you that I, and those who believe it’s appropriate to express opinions about what’s happening in Russia—please don’t try to shut us up. Yes, we were forced to leave the country because the alternative would have been death in prison, as happened with Alexey—you mean Alexey Navalny, of course.
It seems you’re doing quite well for yourself, Tatyana. Very comfortably positioned. So, Alexey, who you believe had the moral right to speak about what’s going on in Russia—he’s dead. He’s no longer here. Alexander Valeryevich Skobov still voices his opinion, but who knows how long he’ll last. Soon there may be no critics of what’s happening in Russia left at all. And you’re trying to silence us—me, Kasparov, and others who, while outside Russia, still criticize what’s going on.
That’s the first point. You have a very convenient position. In effect, you’re calling for a situation where no one is allowed to critically assess what’s happening in Russia.
And one more thing—Tatyana, does your ban on judgments about those who stayed apply only to critics of the Putin regime? Or does it also extend to propagandists? Do I also not have the right to criticize Solovyov, Margarita Simonyan, and so on? Am I not allowed to criticize Putin, in your view? Where’s the line? What am I allowed to say? What am I not? Please provide a detailed instruction manual.
This is an astonishing statement. Simply put, a person has the right to a critical opinion, no matter where they are. Period. That’s a normal position. And any attempt to silence someone is, essentially, playing on Putin’s side.
On Podrabinek and Kasparov Link to heading
Mr. Stepan,
I also don’t understand Podrabinek’s insult directed at Kasparov. It seems rather silly to accuse those who have left. But isn’t he right, in essence, when he writes that they were torn between court hearings, prisons, correspondence with politicians, and material support? I see what, in Garry’s opinion, is lacking in Russia. After all, an anti-war movement doesn’t have to be resistance—especially organized resistance. It can also take the form of this kind of support for politicians. For example, if instead of one powerful organization, which the authorities can easily crush, there are numerous unorganized dissidents. Perhaps that’s even more effective. On the other hand, the example you gave of the Voronezh Six—doesn’t that come across as offensive to the beaten Mr. Zheltukha? But then to hear Kasparov say that in fact it doesn’t exist… In the USSR, six people stood on Red Square for the entire country to see.
Well, maybe not six, maybe eight, but fine.
And here, six people in Voronezh alone are already in prison, and thousands of others are either helping them or protesting in different ways. And I’m sure there are even a million more who stay silent—not because they agree, but because they’re not indifferent. Why insult each other? Why can’t everyone just do what they can, in their own way? Without this mutual… concern? About what, exactly?
Dear Mr. Stepan, I completely agree with you that we should not insult each other. It’s just that what Kasparov said—or rather, wrote—is a very simple thing. A simple thing. There’s no need to attribute to him things he didn’t say. He said very plainly that there is no anti-war movement in Russia. It simply doesn’t exist. You see, the fact that Podrabinek somehow took offense and began to talk about how he is torn between court hearings—that’s Podrabinek’s personal actions. But that’s not an anti-war movement. A movement is something organized. It’s something massive. There is no massive anything. You, dear Mr. Stepan, talk about scattered elements of resistance. Well yes, there are some. But that’s not a movement. There’s no need to force the issue. No one denies the existence of that same Zheltukha, who was beaten, had his ribs broken, his spine injured, and so on. No one denies that, no one denies the heroism of Alexander Valeryevich Skobov or Darya Kozyreva. No one denies that. But it’s not a movement, you see? There’s no organized, large-scale movement—that’s a fact. And the fact that the overwhelming majority of Russians in one way or another support Putin’s war is also a fact. And the main point is that Kasparov said a very simple thing: this is not Putin’s war, this is Russia’s war. And it’s true. But it is the truth. And that in no way denies the actions of Skobov, or Zheltukha, or no no no, Darya Kozyreva, or any of the others, nor Podrabinek’s activities. It doesn’t negate them in any way. It’s just that this is Russia’s war. That’s all.
On Hatred Toward the Author Andrey Korchagin and Trump Supporters Link to heading
Van Shura,
Why does Korchagin—Andrey, who happens to be a Trump supporter—hate you so fiercely? He praises Trump in every possible way and at the same time accuses Zelensky of building a dictatorship.
You know, many people hate me fiercely. Putinists hate me fiercely. Solovyov, for example, has dedicated several programs to me. Trumpists like Veller, for instance, and Borovoy also hate me fiercely. In fact, many—practically all Trump supporters who are aware of my existence—hate me. The well-known ones, that is. They dedicate their programs to me. Well, what can you do? This is war. It’s an information war. And in war, shots are fired. This hatred directed at your humble servant in their countries is evidence that we are on opposite sides of the barricade. That’s exactly what it looks like. Incidentally, Trumpists and Putinists publish virtually identical screeds against me—they’re like twin brothers, as has already been said.
On the Greeting “Christ is Risen” Link to heading
Yaroslav Vasilyuk, here we go again.
How should I respond to someone who greets me with “Christ is Risen!” when that person knows perfectly well my stance on God? And I also clearly remember how he used to explain the wise and correct policies of the Party and the government.
Dear Yaroslav, I’ve tried to explain how I respond—it’s up to you. I respond. I congratulate the person on the holiday. For them, it’s a simple thing. I don’t believe in the existence of a man who rose from the dead. I don’t believe in that. So, saying “Truly He is risen” feels awkward to me. However, I acknowledge and believe that it’s a good thing that nearly one and a half billion people celebrate this holiday, which symbolizes the triumph of good over evil. So, fine—I congratulate the person on the holiday. Again, it all depends on the individual. If you believe that this person is a hypocrite, well, then that’s a different matter.
Is There a Law on the Non-Recognition of Crimea as Russian? Link to heading
So, FSB,
There is no law on the non-recognition of Crimea as Russian that was signed by Trump. That’s a lie spawned by Tabak and spread by members of his congregation. There is only a declaration—if I’m not mistaken, it’s just a State Department statement signed by Secretary of State Pompeo.
The point is that this declaration was signed by Pompeo during Trump’s presidency. And in this case, it doesn’t matter who signed it. What matters is that during his first term as president, there was a declaration of non-recognition of Crimea as Russian. And now Trump is planning to recognize Crimea as Russian. This clear contradiction is what Zelensky pointed out. I don’t see a problem here. That is, during Trump’s… Well, you see, the hypothesis that Pompeo signed this declaration secretly and against Trump’s will doesn’t seem plausible to me. Therefore, I think this is a clear contradiction, and Zelensky highlighted it. During Trump’s first term, a declaration is signed stating that recognizing Crimea as Russian is unacceptable. And during a potential second term, Trump plans to issue such a recognition. It’s a clear contradiction. Everything checks out.
Does the Author Support the Soviet Hypothesis About the Historicity of Christ Link to heading
Sergey Kirichenko,
Do you support the Soviet hypothesis about the historicity of Christ? After all, it has already been proven that all the so-called testimonies are either late forgeries or sincere delusions. That means there is not a single piece of material evidence.
You know, first of all, I don’t really understand why this is called a Soviet hypothesis. In fact, despite the mythologizing of Jesus’ image in Christian sources, the majority of modern scholars still recognize his historicity. It’s quite plausible. You see, I don’t see any problem at all with the historicity of Jesus Christ. The issue lies in attributing supernatural traits to him—recognizing him as a God-man, calling him the Son of God, and so on. The virgin birth, resurrection, etc.—that’s a different story altogether, what we call mythologizing. But the fact that such a preacher, a teacher—a rabbi—existed, I see no problem with that. There were many of them. That was a period—if we take the actual historical period—it was the time leading up to the destruction of the Second Temple. That was a real historical era, and in it there were many rabbinical teachers, ideologically close Pharisees, bearers of Jewish mysticism and asceticism, representatives of missionary movements of a kind of political mysticism—there were quite a few of them. These types of prophets. That’s exactly the period preceding the destruction of the Second Temple. And it should be noted that at that time, Christianity was a movement within Judaism. You could call it a sect or simply a branch of Jewish thought. There were many such Jewish movements. And I think when you say there was no material evidence—what kind of material evidence do you mean? Contrary to what today’s evangelists might believe, the contemporaries of that era, on the eve of the Second Temple’s destruction, did not perceive the life and death of Jesus as central events in world history. Yes, many preachers and prophets roamed around. And Jesus was just one of them—in the eyes of his contemporaries. Later, yes—after Christianity gradually emerged as a separate religion, broke away from the womb of Judaism, and became an increasingly significant force—then came the mythologizing, the attribution of supernatural qualities, and references in the works of historians: Tacitus, Josephus Flavius, Pliny the Younger. Of course, there are different debates—those fragments in works that refer to Jesus Christ’s personality—were they somehow forged? Yes, that’s a topic for a separate historical discussion. But once again, I emphasize that I see no issue at all here. There were many such preachers walking around Judea. What’s the problem? What his exact name was, I don’t know. Again, I still think that such a person did exist. And he was, so to speak, the basis of the myth. And as for him not being a God-man—yes, I think so too. I really don’t see any serious issue here.
What Should the New Pope Be Like, According to the Author Link to heading
KOSTA Katsuba,
What, in your opinion, should the new pope be like? Could it possibly be a woman? Or is such a level of freedom and equality still far off? Would it be better if they were European, Italian, or from the Global South? After reading an article on Meduza, I realized that their internal processes are no different from secular political affairs. Yet the number of believers worldwide is substantial. How significant is the role of the Catholic Church in global processes, like other world religions in general, and particularly in countries with authoritarian regimes like Belarus?
Well, that’s one question, and I’ll answer it right away. First of all, I believe—and I’ve said this before when discussing the political legacy of Francis—that Francis is a personification of the global tectonic shift within Catholicism, the essence of which is the shift of the political and primary center of Catholicism to the South. Today, the center of Catholicism is no longer Europe but Latin America, Africa, and to some extent Southeast Asia, and so on. Catholicism is primarily moving in that direction. The main Catholic countries today are not Italy, Spain, or France, but Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, and so on. So Catholicism is significantly changing its geography. And because of that, I don’t know what would be “better.” But it would be more or less natural if the representative came from countries of the Global South, yes? From a Eurocentric point of view—we all, or at least I certainly do, suffer from a kind of Euro-bias. That’s true. Yes, we would naturally prefer it if the person were from Europe. But objective circumstances dictate a completely different choice.
Can People Change Through Reading and Intellectual Development Link to heading
Now, the next question.
I like the expression—this is again from Kostya Katsuba—about a girl you can take out of the village, but you can’t take the village out of the girl. I like it. Maybe because I was raised in a patriarchal society. And I’m a village fool myself, I don’t know. Tell me, is it possible for all people to reasonably change through awareness, reading, psychology? Or is what’s in your bones something you can’t beat out of your flesh?
Well, dear colleague, all of world history disproves that saying. Because, you see, if you look at the biographies of outstanding scholars, you’ll often find that they came from rural areas—they were from the countryside, yes? A person who came from a rural background, a descendant of peasants, farmers, and so on, becomes a distinguished scholar. A self-made person. The most classic example, of course, is Lomonosov. But you can just trace it, and you’ll see that a very large number of scientists, directors, poets, and writers were—well, let’s say, far from all of them were born into the intelligentsia. The list is enormous. I don’t even want to start listing it.
Is Christ’s Death a Sacrifice If He Knew About His Resurrection in Advance? What Did He Risk? Link to heading
The author of the question calls themselves “in spite of.”
What do you think—is Christ’s death really a sacrifice if He knew in advance about His resurrection? What was He risking?
You know, dear colleague, this is one of those dozens of classic trick questions that used to be asked by gymnasium students back when religious studies were a compulsory subject. There are dozens of such questions in the spirit of sophistry—like “Can God create a stone so heavy that even He cannot lift it?” So, yes, it’s sophistry. I’m generally okay with it. But since I’m a non-believer, these sophistic questions don’t really concern me. I believe this is an attempt at logical construction aimed at disproving something. But since I don’t believe that there could have been a person who knew in advance about their resurrection, the question is meaningless to me. That’s all. I understand the point of such questions for believers—they’re aimed at challenging faith. But me? What do I have to do with it? I don’t believe in it.
Is It True That Trump, Like Putin, Is a Fascist? Link to heading
Armen FSB says,
Since Trump and Putin are very similar. Is it true that Trump, like Putin, is a fascist?
Yes, dear colleague, I believe so too. I think both of them are leaders of the fascist type.
Request Not to Ignore Vyacheslav Maltsev Link to heading
A question from Nikolai in Kharkiv,
Under what circumstances will you stop ignoring Vyacheslav Maltsev? I see no other politician, in either the Russian Federation, Russia, or Ukraine, who strives for and is capable of fighting for power the way he does. He sees things clearly, unites people, explains the current situation of humanity, and offers a way out through the creation of a cybernetic direct democracy state. He speaks honestly about the inevitable collapse of the Russian Federation and a civil war, and about the necessity of a transitional period under personal dictatorship. As a political émigré in France—this is all written by Nikolai from Kharkiv—he has organized a partisan movement in Russia focused on sabotage and disruption, and is developing a plan for the physical elimination of Putin. He aims for a revolutionary coup like the October Revolution, seizing power and establishing a transitional dictatorship similar to Lee Kuan Yew’s. His goal is to completely destroy Putin’s regime and build a direct democracy state with Moscow as its capital.
Dear Nikolai, everything you’ve written here is what Vyacheslav Maltsev says about himself. Now listen to what Putin says about himself. Listen to what Trump says about himself. And judge from there. Yes, in making my own assessment, I don’t rely on what Vyacheslav Maltsev says about himself. Vyacheslav Maltsev—if we objectively consider what he has said and done over the years, and not just recently—is a liar, a scoundrel, and a provocateur. These fairy tales about organizing a partisan movement in Russia while living in France are lies. He didn’t organize any partisan movement. He claims responsibility for various acts of sabotage and disruption that he had nothing to do with. While in France, he spent years announcing the date of a revolution and calling for it. When a few dozen young people actually tried to go out into the streets and do something, they were arrested and sentenced to long prison terms. He himself neatly escaped to France. So he’s a provocateur. He set people up, ruined the lives of many, and now lives peacefully in France, continuing to lie and talk about organizing a partisan movement. I won’t even analyze his views here, although I have evaluated them in the past. He’s a liar, a scoundrel, and a provocateur. So to answer your question—under what circumstances would I stop ignoring Vyacheslav Maltsev? Under no circumstances. I have a firm conviction about this person. But of course, this is a matter of personal judgment. You asked me, and I’m giving you my answer. So judge for yourself—look at what he’s done and come to your own conclusions.
Closing Remarks Link to heading
Dear friends, this concludes our morning stream for today. A reminder that at 19:00 we have a meeting with Andrei Andreyevich Piontkovsky. Glory to Ukraine! Please take care of yourselves. Freedom to Alexander Skobov! Darya Kozyreva, and to all Russian political prisoners and Ukrainian captives. See you at 19:00.
Source: https://youtu.be/5C1LpFvl1M8